DIWAN CHAND AGGARWAL & ORS. Vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.
LPA 7 /2021 Page 1 of 4
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 8th January , 2021
+ LPA 7/2021
DIWAN CHAND AGGARWAL & ORS. …..Appellant s
Through: Ms. Mallika Parmar and Ms. Nitya
Sharma, Advocates.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. …..Respondent s
Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing
Counsel for DDA.
Ms. Anya Singh, Advocate for R -2
and R -4.
Mr. Siddharth Khatana, Advocate for R-3/UOI.
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
JUDGMENT
: D. N. PATEL, Chief Justice (Oral)
Proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video
conferencing.
CM APPL. 6 00/2021 (exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application is disposed of.
LPA 7/2021 , C.Ms.No. 599/2021 (stay) , 601/2021 (addl docs.)
1. The appellants (original petitioners) have preferred the present Letters
2021:DHC:83-DB
LPA 7 /2021 Page 2 of 4
Patent Appeal being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated
10.11.2020 in W.P.(C) 8872/2020.
2. The prayer in the writ petition reads as under : –
“(i) Writ of Ce rtiorari quashing the order dated 09.04.2019
passed by the Respondent No.1, Delhi Development Authority in
File no.DW2/0698/18 -19 granting sanction to erect / re -erect /
add to / alter buildings in Mandakini Cooperative Group Housing Society, Dwarka, Delhi;
(ii) Writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated 08.02.2019
passed by the Respondent No.2, Chief Fire Officer accepting proposal of the Respondent No.6 Society;
(iii) Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents No.1, 3, 4
and 5 to ensure stoppage of all construction and development activity, especially the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) extension project being carried out by Respondent No.6 Managing Committee in
the Mandakini Cooperative Group Housing Society forthwith;
(iv) Writ of Mandamus directing the M anaging Committee of
Respondent No.6 Society to restore the buildings/ society to their/
its original state as existed before the commencement of the said
construction / development work at their cost;
v) Writ of Mandamus permanently injuncting the
Respondent No. 6 Society from carrying out any construction
work qua the respective Flats of the Petitioners herein or any
construction work adversely affecting the existing structure and layout of the flats of the Petitioners herein without their conse nt
and n o objection certificate;
vi) Writ of Mandamus directing appointment of
Administrator to manage the affairs of the Respondent No. 6 Society and further directing enquiry into the activities of the Managing Committee of the Society qua the development/construction work in the Society including financial
irregularities and fraudulent acts committed by the members of
the Managing Committee and removal of the financial liability created on the Petitioners of Rs.55,000/- towards the FAR
2021:DHC:83-DB
LPA 7 /2021 Page 3 of 4
extension project w ithout their consent/approval ;
vii) Ensuring the protection of life & liberty under Article 21
of the Constitution of India of the petitioners and members of the
society who have been adversely affected by the illegal acts of the Managing Committee of t he society and direct Respondents
No. 2 & 3 to ensure that all guidelines, rules and regulation qua Covid -19 are followed strictly in the Respondent No. 5 Society.”
3. The main grievance ventilated by the appellants (original petitioners)
is against the sanction granted by Delhi Development Authority to erect/re –
erect/add to/alter buildings in Mandakini Cooperative Group Housing
Society, Dwarka, Delhi vide order dated 9
th April, 2019 (annexed as
Annexure A -2 to the appeal). It is submitted in this regard by the learned
counsel for the appellants that Management of the Mandakini Cooperative Group Housing Society has obtained the sanction of the plan under Section
12 of the DDA Act, 1957 by fraud and misrepresentation.
4. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view
that the present appeal is not maintainable as the appellants have efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 31- C of the DDA Act,
1957 for challenging the sanction plan . This aspect of the matter has been
correctly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence we see no
reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.11.2020 in W.P.(C) 8872/2020.
5. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.
Pending appl ications also stand dismissed.
6. As and when any appeal is preferred by the appellants , the same shall
be decided by the concerned Authority/Tribunal in accordance with law,
2021:DHC:83-DB
LPA 7 /2021 Page 4 of 4
rules, regulations and G overnment policies applicable to the facts of the case
and o n the basis of the evidences on record . Needless to state that the
decision will be taken without being influenced by the order of the learned
Single Judge in W.P.(C) 8872/2020 dated 10.11.2020 and the order passed
by this Court today.
CHIEF JUSTICE
JYOTI SINGH, J
JANUARY 8, 2021
sr
2021:DHC:83-DB